Abortion & the Problem of Rape

  • Thread starter Thread starter FatherMerrin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
?? She said we should not call the baby a rapists baby, so how does that support your contention

But while you brought up slavery, its not ironic that the same people pushing abortion and carving out an exception that the baby isn’t a “human” are the same people who pushed slavery and carved out an exception that slave isn’t a “human”. The pattern is consistent - these people have an ideology that denies all the same basic human right to life.
 
What about emergency contraception (the morning after pill) in the case of rape? Is this considered morally acceptable per Catholic teaching?
 
Marie16 said:
What about emergency contraception (the morning after pill) in the case of rape? Is this considered morally acceptable per Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church condemns the morning after pill.
 
Ok. Thank you. I know contraception is not to be used normally, but I had been confused on this topic for several years since learning a Catholic hospital allowed its use in cases of rape if the woman had a negative pregnancy test ruling out pregnancy that occurred prior to the rape (as much as it could be ruled out).
 
Marie16 said:
Ok. Thank you. I know contraception is not to be used normally, but I had been confused on this topic for several years since learning a Catholic hospital allowed its use in cases of rape if the woman had a negative pregnancy test ruling out pregnancy that occurred prior to the rape (as much as it could be ruled out).
Click to expand...
This is actually licit, as long as absolutely no signs of conception are present. The reasoning is that the woman has a right to protect herself, so long as it’s not at the expense of a child’s life.
 
Last edited:
There are nuances that need to be taken into account here.

If the conception had not yet taken place and the sperm has not yet met the egg and a zygote has not yet been made, then contraception can be employed.

I am using the word, contraception, in the purest form. It means against conception. This means preventing conception. Preventing the sperm from meeting the egg.

However if a zygote has already been formed than it should not be killed since the belief is a new human has already been formed and has the right to life. This human should not be punished for the crimes of his or her father.

Obviously artificial contraception even in the pure sense of the word is not allowed by the Catholic Church because married couples are supposed to be open to life. This is not the case for rape. A woman is not supposed to be open to life with her rapist. Anyone who claims otherwise and says it is Church Doctrine is wrong.
 
That comment is truly repulsive. Rape and not enjoying sex is 2 completly different things. If that is truly your belief I think you really need to speak to a preist or a councillor about your twisted view on what is appropriate sexually
 
Absolutely right - the sin and crime of rape is not an excuse or justification for the sin of murdering a child in the womb.
 
The Church does not believe that children should have a death penalty for the crimes of their father.
 
Dacinom said:
Abortion does not “un-rape” a woman. It is very rare for a woman to conceive under those circumstances, but those that have and have chosen life feel triumph over what happened.

Abortion is a violent act not only to a baby but to the mother. Abortion after a rape does violence to her twice.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the violence of rape and abortion doing nothing to undo the rape. But the circumstances of rape do not make conception any less likely than any other circumstances of sexual intercourse. If no barrier method is used and a woman is ovulating or is about to ovulate, conception is as likely to occur as in any other circumstance of intercourse.

I feel this is important to mention because some people, who do not understand the science, believe that if a woman has gotten pregnant, “real rape” did not occur.
 
That’s an urban legend. Unless by “trauma” you mean severe injury to the cervix or something like that, which could cause a lifetime of inability to carry a child to term. There’s nothing about emotional trauma that prevents fertilization or implantation. Any single completed sex act has the same chance of causing pregnancy if the woman is fertile.
 
I don’t see how a woman’s body being able to continue a pregnancy despite trauma makes her a “machine”. Would you say that if it was a “wanted child”? If a woman was raped while already pregnant, would you say she was a “machine” if her emotions didn’t cause an immediate miscarriage? I highly doubt it. Most people would say, “Isn’t it miraculous how amazingly strong women’s bodies are?” I don’t think there are any juries out on this. Even if there is such a thing as a stress-induced miscarriage, that doesn’t mean that there was no conception. Obviously, you can’t have a miscarriage without a conception. Other posters have pointed out how this unscientific claim has been cruelly used against women, even in legal cases. Even if you insist on believing that the “jury is out”, it’s probably best not to make such statements that are so hurtful to women who have lived through trauma.
 
I think the tricky thing these days is that it’s a lot harder to give a baby up and not be traced. The Children’s Act in the UK gives adopted children the right to seek information like their birth certificate at 18 and now you have things like social media this searching for biological family can happen sooner.

It could make it a lot harder for a woman in this situation to move on.
 
No, I’m saying that because Bill O’Reilly has been proven multiple times to be a pathological liar and a generally awful human being. This goes far beyond subjective opinion, Logan.
 
The Vatican has not spoken on emergency contraception. Some Bishops have commented, however, this not settled yet.
 
Perhaps the following article might help with your question.

" health care providers must provide treatment to prevent the possible contraction of venereal disease and pregnancy. The Directives state, “A woman who has been raped may defend herself against a conception resulting from sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medication that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”(no. 36)

The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman’s dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy. (Please note that for these three reasons, this guidance does not violate the Church’ s teaching regarding contraception as expressed in Humanae Vitae , which, because of the free-giving between spouses, stated, “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (no. 11).)”

 
Officially they don’t allow it. It would be wrong kill or punish anyone for their parents sins.
Contraception, say the pill or female comdoms, may used in anticipation of rape, and contraception may possibly be used after rape and before conception.
Children conceived by rape may also be given up for adoption.
It would be wrong to force people into motherhood.
 
It’s one of those situations with a loser (for want of a better word) and there is no fair solution to both parties.
 
You didn’t “simply disagree that woman’s mental state during trauma NEVER impacts conception,” though. Your original statement was that conception from rape was rare and you didn’t state it as an opinion. You went further by dehumanizing women who did conceive during rape, comparing them to a “machine”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top